1/26/10

Acanthophis Gore XXIII

The NYTimes released a story last week that seemed to pass with little notice. It seems the IPCC has made a small error in it's reporting. Below is an excerpt from the article.

(link to full NYTimes article)Leaders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change apologized yesterday for making a "poorly substantiated" claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.....the IPCC report relied on news accounts that appear to misquote a scientific paper that estimated the glaciers could disappear by 2350, not 2035.

"The damage was that IPCC had, or I think still has, such a stellar reputation that people view it as an authority -- as indeed they should -- and so they see a bullet that says Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 and they take that as a fact," said, Arizona Prof. Jeffrey Kargel

Just so you know, I don't consider the IPCC an authority. I consider them incompetent fools who use fear mongering tactics to frighten us into making life altering changes both to our personal lives and our economy, transportation, food, education and employment. They work daily to steal our sovereignty and bring our citizens under the rule of a European based world governing body. So I have a bit of a problem saying that the IPCC is an authority on anything more than pure anti-Capitalist Marxism.

The problem here is not that they made a typo, the issue here is that a group of vipers who use lies of horror to force us into supporting their baleful agenda, tricked the world into thinking the melting was so rapid that it would be gone in 25 yrs. If you believe the left wing rhetoric passed along by the Mainstream media you will no doubt panic and believe or do what ever you can to stop it. However the truth is that their projections were off by 315 yrs. Not only does this make things a little less urgent but it also gives far less credence to their prediction.e.g.: What if the local weather-man came on the news tonight and said that a huge storm with flash floods and tornados were expected on Saturday?! Would you feel a bit squeezed for time getting ready? Of course. However, what if the same weather-man warned you that the same terrible storm was imminent in 8 months?! Are you still as freaked out? Do you feel panicked? No. Of course you don't. You don't so readily believe him either. Most weather-men can't predict a storm two days away with any true accuracy so why would you believe he can tell what will happen in 8 months? I know climate predictions are different from meteorological predictions but the analogy still fits.

Leftists love to call me and others like me 'anti-Science' or 'Science Deniers'. Yet they denied science when DDT was saving lives around the world and they ignored the science and banned it anyway, resulting in the Malarial deaths of hundreds of millions of people. They were anti Science when they said heterosexual AIDS would sweep the nation and used similar scare tactics to force people into not only giving money but changing their opinions about social degradation and the natural abnormality of intravenous drug abuse and homosexuality. The left was anti science when they said we came from apes who originated in pond scum instead of supporting evidence that we are a unique being with direct ties to our creator. They are the Science Deniers when they say that man produced CO2 emissions caused the climate to warm. Then when 10 years of steady cooling occurred they said the interregnal, life sustaining ingredient to our Earth, 'CO2', was causing cooling also; so they re-named it, 'Climate Change'. And finally when we point out that life is sacred and should be protected at all stages in life they deny science and say the fetus is not a person and the old woman does not have an acceptable quality of life and both may be thrown away at the whim or convenience of others. So remember the next time a long haired smelly hippie crawls out of his 'flower power' van and says 'You' are anti Science or that you deny science.... it's ok to give him a swift kick to the groin.

10/19/09

Obama to cede American Sovereignty

He is the British Benjamin Franklin of our time. Instead of dispatching him to France as revolutionary America did; today's Great Britton has sent 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (Lord) Christopher Monkton to rally America to the cause of defending freedom!Please Watch the video and/or read the transcript below.

Transcript:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

10/18/09

BBC- What Happened to Global WarmingThis headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.So what on Earth is going on?Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

So what can we expect in the next few years?Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

6/17/08

Acanthophis Gore XXI

Today the Tennessee Center for Policy Research released a revealing report exposing more Al-Gore hypocrisy!He preaches that we should all save the planet by conserving energy. Some Enviro-Nazis say we should reduce our energy consumption by not eating meat, selling our cars and riding a bike, cutting back on air travel and o'yeah not having babies.So you would expect a man leading such loons to lead by example.As I have reported before, we know Al Gore's mansion uses more electricity than some small towns.So last year he made promises to reduce his personal carbon footprint. With that resolution behind him he went back to work promoting his socialist agenda to use global warming to wreck our economy, grow our govenment, remove our liberties and bring our energy policies under the control of world courts in foreign nations.

Well, it's a year later now Al, time to check the numbers and show the world how it's done.........

10/24/07

Anthony Watts, a retired meteorologist from California, has compiled quite the collection of data regarding the obvious & blatant practices of NOAA, USCRN and other entities responsible for measuring local and global temperatures. These people have measured data in this way for more than one hundred years. However, as time goes on, they say, progress has sprung up around their sensors. So they had to be moved. Many of them were relocated post George Bush and post the Al Gore rantings on climate change. Sensors have been placed in new settings which now actually go against their own long established guidelines and restrictions. Is this on purpose? Well, if there were only one documented case I would say, "No, absolutely not. Mistakes can be made."

However, if I learned about five documented cases I may be curious, but in no way would I say they are proof of a concerted effort to manipulate data. So what would you say if dozens of such cases were documented or almost 1/4 of the sensors currently collecting data in the US? Well, Mr. Watts is still uncovering them and he has dozens of such cases documented thus far.

Durring this time I bet NOAA has made a hasty effort to correct the worst cases before Watts can add them to his list. So that makes us wonder, how many of these sensors were moved into conditions meant to skew data prior to the noise made by Watts? Also, how come we don't find any that have been 'inadvertantly' placed in cold situations? None have been found near abnormally cool areas. None are in complete shade from the sun or accidentally situated near the front end of a fan. All situations just happen to cause the sensors to read a warmer than normal temperature.

Is it possible that, in order to help Al Gore and his Enviro-nuts in their quest to prove Global Warming, NOAA and others strategically place thermometers and sensors that collect temperature data which go into our National Climatic Database? This Data Base is used to prove we are warming faster and faster.

However, if NOAA is forced to correct all of these sensors, Al Gore and his traveling Marxist band will lose a great tool. Because the readings will not be the same when these sensors are replaced correctly. The temperature will even out and the hoax of global warming will be further revealed.

If this is done intentionaly, what they have done is criminal and they should be exposed and convicted of fraud!Please forward this to everyone you know so they too can see how climate 'Science' is invented.I have included a few of the pictures from Mr. Watt's website. Please followTHIS LINKto his site and read the whole story.It is an indictment of Gore and all those Scientists who seek to use JUNK SCIENCE to line their pockets and promote a Socialist agenda.Note: By NOAA standards, sensors should be positioned so that they are 100 ft or more from objects that retain or give off heat. Any closer and the readings will be compromised.You will note in these pictures that sensors have been placed near asphalt, A/C exhausts, cars, tar and shingle rooftops, trash burning barrels, fireplace chimneys, Cell towers, BBQ Grills, brick walls, heat emitting sewage vats, cinder/ash rockbeds and even near airplane parking spots!Do you think these highly educated scientists just 'Accidentally' placed these thermometers in such hotspots?

Notice a difference? One of these graphs supports Global Warming....which could it be?Now do you still trust these people to properly and honestly inform you about something so important and potentially life changing as anthropogenic (man-made) global warming?I certainly do NOT! Enjoy the pictures watch the video by BobCarter and then visit Anthony Watts' Blog. It is worth the time.~Watch video of Bob Carter speaking about the farce of Anthopogenic Global Warming~

6/19/07

Acanthophis Gore pt XIX

Thirty plus years ago scientists and the media sought to warn us of impending 'global doom' due to climate change. They used many of the same tactics (evident in the article below released in 1975) as today's environmental alarmists. The difference lies only in the science......"Unanimous catastrophic famines may result from globalCOOLING."Newsweek~April 28, 1975There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation.Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading.

Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery.

“Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.

They concede thatsome of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

~Watch Video on Global Cooling~

Read also:

It is projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase six to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5° K [3.5° C]. Such a large decrease in the average surface temperature of the Earth, sustained over a period of a few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

— Science,“Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols,”July 9, 1971

Climatologists now blame those recurring droughts and floods on a global cooling trend. It could bring massive tragedies for mankind.

— Fortune,“Ominous Changes in the World’s Weather,” February 1974

Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

— Time,“Another Ice Age?” June 24, 1974

Climatologists have advanced a number of theories to explain why the world’s climate is getting worse. The dominant school maintains that the world is becoming cooler, resulting in a loss of arable land at the higher latitudes and major shifts in rainfall patterns. A second school believes the world is warming, with equally serious consequences.

Most scientists agree that today’s ice movement may reflect a worldwide cooling trend, but their explanations vary widely.

— National Geographic,“What’s Happening to Our Climate?” November 1976

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end … leading into the next glacial age....

— National Science Board, 1972

What ever happened to global warming? Scientists have issued apocalyptic warnings for years, claiming that gases from cars, power plants and factories are creating a greenhouse effect that will boost the temperature dangerously.... But if last week is any indication of winters to come, it might be more to the point to start worrying about the next Ice Age instead. After all, human-induced warming is still largely theoretical, while ice ages are an established part of the planet’s history. — Time,“The Ice Age Cometh?” January 31, 1994

Acanthophis Gore XVIII

6/18/07

Acanthophis Gore XVII

Scalia DissentingHere is an excerpt of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in the 2006MASSACHUSETTS v. EPAruling. It concluded that the EPA can now regulate CO2 as a pollutant.If the leftist justices who passed this ruling understand these things Scallia does, they are contemptuous, devious and nefarious in their agenda.In other words, like Al Gore they are snakes.

Scaliasaid:"......Thus, in deciding whether it had authority to regulate, EPA had to determine whether the concentration of greenhouse gases assertedly responsible for “global climate change” qualifies as “air pollution.” EPA began with the common sense observation that the “[p]roblems associated with atmospheric concentrations of CO2, bear little resemblance to what would naturally be termed “air pollution”: “EPA’s prior use of the CAA’s general regulatory provisions provides an important context. Since the inception of the Act, EPA has used these provisions to address air pollution problems that occur primarily at ground level or near the surface of the earth.

For example, national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) established under CAA section 109 address concentrations of substances in the ambient air and the related public health and welfare problems. This has meant setting NAAQS for concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and other substances in the air near the surface of the earth, not higher in the atmosphere. . . . CO2, by contrast, is fairly consistent in concentration throughout the world’s atmosphere up to approximately the lower stratosphere.” In other words, regulating the buildup of CO2and other greenhouse gases in the upper reaches of the atmosphere,which is alleged to be causing global climate change, is notakin to regulating the concentration of some substance that is polluting the air.

We need look no further than the dictionary for confir-mation that this interpretation of “air pollution” is emi-nently reasonable. The definition of “pollute,” of course, is “[t]o make or render impure or unclean.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 1910 (2d ed. 1949). And the first three definitions of “air” are as follows: (1) “[t]he invisible, odorless, and tasteless mixture of gases which surrounds the earth”; (2) “[t]he body of the earth’s atmosphere; esp.,the part of it near the earth, as distinguished from theupper rarefied part”; (3) “[a] portion of air or of the air considered with respect to physical characteristics or asaffecting the senses.”

EPA’s conception of “air pollution”—focusing on impurities in the “ambient air” “atground level or near the surface of the earth”—is perfectly consistent with the natural meaning of that term. In the end, EPA concluded that since “CAA authorization to regulate is generally based on a finding that an air pollutant causes or contributes to air pollution,” the concentrations of CO2 and other green-house gases allegedly affecting the global climate are beyond the scope of CAA’s authorization to regulate. “[T]he term ‘air pollution’ as used in the regulatory provisions cannot be interpreted to encompass global climate change.”

Once again, the Court utterly fails toexplain why this interpretation is incorrect, let alone so unreasonable as to be unworthy of Chevron deference.

The Court’s alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statutegiving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policyissues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency. "environmental

6/15/07

Acanthophis Gore pt XVI

By Vaclav KlausPublished: June 13 2007 17:44

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following:■Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures■Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided ■Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants■Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority■Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour■Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction■Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.The writer is President of the Czech Republicenvironmental